1. Field of the Invention
The invention relates to disposable beverage containers and more particularly to a drinking container having an upper cooling reservoir so that an immediate drinking can be carried out by opening a hinged lid of a cooling reservoir enclosure after containing hot beverage (e.g., coffee or tea) in the container and tipping the container.
2. Description of Related Art
It is understood that the optimum temperature for drinking coffee from a coffee cup is about 85° C. Disposable coffee cups employed by fast food restaurants are made of plastic with thermal insulation for containing hot coffee. A lid is releasably provided on a top opening of the cup. A sip opening is formed on the lid so that a consumer may sip the coffee through the sip opening. It is typical that coffee contained in the cup served by fast food restaurant may have a temperature more than 85° C. A consumer may have to open the lid to cool the coffee for some time if he/she wants to drink the coffee quickly. However, the fastening of the lid and the cup is very tight. It is required that a consumer has to exert a great force to open the cup. This, unfortunately, may permanently deform the plastic cup and even spill the hot coffee to pollute clothes, the ambient articles, or components inside a vehicle and/or cause accidental injuries to the fingers. These are problems experienced by the conventional coffee cups.
For solving the spillage problem, a wide variety of non-spill drinking containers are disclosed. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 3,301,459 entitled “closure for drinking containers” aims to prevent hot beverage contained a cup from spilling while drinking without removing the closure. Moreover, U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,722,783, 4,113,135, 4,285,442, 4,394,928, 4,412,629, 4,582,214, 4,615,459, 5,090,584, 5,183,172, 5,253,781, 5,490,609, 6,196,404, and 6,612,456 all addressed non-spilling container lid.
Consumers injured by spilled hot coffee are not uncommon. For example, Stella Liebeck v. McDonald's Corporation, also known as the “McDonald's coffee case”, is a well-known court case in the United States.
A consumer has to open a top to add condiments (e.g., creamers and sweeteners) to hot beverage (e.g., coffee or tea) contained in a typical container having a snugly fit lid. However, it is often during this activity that injurious splashes or spills of the hot beverage occur, especially, in a moving vehicle. For solving above problem, U.S. Pat. No. 5,894,952 entitled “Spill resistant cup lid with condiment funnel and stirring rod” discloses a funnel on center of a releasable lid, the funnel having an opening for adding condiments and allowing a stirring rod to insert through for stirring purpose; and a spout having a sip opening. However, a consumer has to wait a period of time until beverage contained in the cup is cooled to a temperature below 85° C. if the hot beverage has a temperature greater than 85° C. initially. The “952 Patent” still does not solve the problem of waiting for cooling beverage.
There are two drawbacks associated with opening a lid for cooling hot beverage contained in a beverage container. One is that it is impossible of completely avoiding splashing or overturning of the hot beverage and the other is the great reduction of time of sipping the beverage (e.g., coffee) because the beverage has been greatly cooled in a relatively short period of time. For solving above problem, U.S. Pat. No. 6,176,390 entitled “container lid with cooling reservoir” discloses a cooling reservoir is provided in a lid. The cooling reservoir has a side wall with a small opening to allow a small volume of a hot beverage contained in the container to pass into the cooling reservoir by tipping the container. In the cooling reservoir the beverage sufficiently cools down to enable a consumer to sip the beverage.
However, the “390'Patent” suffers from a drawback. In detail, a consumer has to tilt the container to sip the beverage while the hot beverage in the container flows into the cooling reservoir to mix with the cooled beverage. However, the consumer may not be aware of the mixing. Hence, the consumer may drink the beverage without knowing that the beverage is hotter than he/she thinks. It is often that the consumer may be injured by the hot beverage. The “390'Patent” is particularly undesirable to a vehicle driver since he/she may concentrate on driving while drinking the beverage.
Moreover, U.S. Pat. No. 6,571,973 entitled “cup lid with cooling spillover chamber” discloses a lid for a cup having a rim having a first component having a sip opening, the sip opening being located on the first component so as to be adjacent the rim of the cup when the lid is mounted on the cup. The lid further includes a second component having an edge defining at least a portion of a spill opening, the spill opening being spaced from the sip opening substantially along a line corresponding to a diameter of the rim of the cup when the lid is mounted on the cup. The lid still further includes a spillover chamber connected to the second component so as to receive liquid from within the cup through the spill opening when the cup is tipped toward the second position, the spillover chamber being outside of the cup when the lid is mounted on the cup. Finally, the lid includes a transfer structure providing a path to transfer liquid from the spillover chamber to the sip opening when the cup is tipped toward the sip opening, and a barrier to prevent transfer of liquid from within the cup to the sip opening without passing through the spillover chamber in any tipping position of the cup.
The “973'Patent” enables a small portion of the hot liquid inside to be cooled rapidly for immediate drinking while the remainder of the liquid is kept hot. However, the “973 Patent” still suffers from a drawback. In short, after sufficiently cooling down the beverage contained in the cup, the consumer has to remove the lid completely for drinking. This inevitably may increase the possibility of spillage.
Thus, the need for solving the above discussed problems of the prior art still exists. Moreover, notwithstanding the prior art, the invention is neither taught nor rendered obvious thereby.